There is an elegance to The Rule of Law that lies in its simplicity. The Rule of Law means that no one is above the law: no individual, no bureaucrat, no government at any level.
If asked, most of us would describe ourselves as law-abiding citizens. We were raised as such and have raised or are raising our children within the same moral framework that had served our parents before us.
What has been missed by some, with respect to the Fort Langley issue, is that The Rule of Law has been challenged.
That should be of import to each and every person living in our Township, but that has not been the case.
In fact, in Fort Langley, those who drew attention to the fact in court have been challenged, castigated.
There is a disconnect here.
The guardians of The Rule of Law are the court and the judiciary which stand in defense of the law.
The Township was taken to court to protect The Rule of Law. The Township lost, because it broke the Law.
Laws can be changed, but cannot be ignored. Each of us should question any venue where an existing law is ignored and then, when challenged, is changed after the fact. That is equivalent to raising the speed limit after the rich man has sped through.
Are we continuing to abuse The Rule of Law here in the Township?
How would one explain this issue to oneâ€™s children? How do we, as adults, imbue our young people with moral values and the importance of abiding by the law, when those elected to public office fail to set a worthy example?
Our attention must focus, with clarity and without emotion upon this very basic issue.
Our society is governed by laws that serve to strengthen the framework of our social structure. The laws exist, and we do not get to pick and to choose which we will acknowledge and obey.
Our elected municipal officials are held â€“ or should be held â€“ to a higher standard. That high standard also applies to the municipal bureaucrats and employees who draw their pay cheques from the public purse.
The standard exists, and so do the public expectations.
Because of decisions made by Township council and bureaucrats, how many other Langley taxpayers are being, have been, or will be forced to seek redress through the court when comparable existing laws are disregarded in support of, for example, developers?
How many of our hard-earned tax dollars are being, have been, or will be spent on well-paid municipal lawyers fighting against municipal taxpayers?
Now, there is a question to be asked and to be answered before the next election.
I. McKaig, Langley